Step 4 Celtic Interconnector
Consultation Report 17/04/2020
If you would like a large text
version of this document, please
contact us.
The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author. The European
Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information
contained therein.
Client EirGrid
Title Step 4 Celtic Interconnector
Subtitle Consultation Report
Dates last published 16/03/2020
last revised 16/04/2020
Status Final
Version Version 2.0
Classification Released
Project Code 11179
Author(s) Doug Jefferson, LaShanda Seaman, Ed
Hatfield, Martha Julings
Quality Assurance by Dan Barrett
Main point of contact Doug Jefferson
Telephone +44 (0) 207 239 7800
Email [email protected]
t. +44 (0) 207 239 7800 p. The Angel Office, 2 Angel Square, London,
EC1V 1NY United Kingdom
e. [email protected] w. www.traverse.ltd
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Released
Final - Version 2.0
Contents
1.Executive summary 5
1.1. Consultation process .................................................................... 5
1.2. Consultation responses ................................................................ 5
2.Introduction 8
2.1. About this report ........................................................................... 8
2.2. About the Celtic Interconnector Project ...................................... 8
2.3. About this consultation ................................................................ 8
2.4. Responses received .................................................................... 11
2.5. Response channels ..................................................................... 11
2.6. Data processing ........................................................................... 12
2.7. Reporting ..................................................................................... 13
3.Feedback on the Celtic Interconnector Project overall 15
3.1. Overview ...................................................................................... 15
3.2. Comments supporting the Celtic Interconnector Project ........ 15
3.3. Comments expressing concern about the Celtic Interconnector Project ................................................................................................... 15
3.4. Suggestions relating to the Celtic Interconnector Project ...... 19
4.Feedback on proposed landfall location 20
4.1. Overview ...................................................................................... 20
4.2. Comments supporting Claycastle Beach .................................. 20
4.3. Comments expressing concern about Claycastle Beach ........ 20
4.4. Suggestions relating to Claycastle Beach ................................ 21
4.5. Comments about the proposed DC cabling route .................... 22
4.6. Suggestions relating to the proposed DC cabling route ......... 23
4.7. Suggestions on other landfall locations ................................... 23
5.Feedback on proposed converter station sites 24
5.1. Overview ...................................................................................... 24
5.2. Comments supporting converter station site 1- Ballyadam .... 24
5.3. Comments expressing concern about the converter station site 1- Ballyadam ......................................................................................... 27
5.4. Suggestions for the converter station site 1- Ballyadam ......... 28
5.5. Comments supporting converter station site 9b - Knockraha 28
5.6. Comments expressing concern about converter station site 9b - Knockraha .......................................................................................... 29
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Released
Final - Version 2.0
5.7. Comments supporting converter station site 12 - Kilquane (Meeleen) .............................................................................................. 35
5.8. Comments expressing concern about converter station site 12 – Kilquane (Meeleen) ........................................................................... 36
5.9. Comments making suggestions about converter station site 12 – Kilquane (Meeleen) ........................................................................... 47
5.10. Comments regarding other potential and alternative converter station sites .......................................................................................... 47
5.11. Comments on the assessment process and studies undertaken in identifying the converter station sites ........................................... 48
6.Feedback on proposed community fund 51
6.1. Overview ...................................................................................... 51
6.2. Suggestions regarding the community fund ............................ 51
6.3. Comments expressing concerns about the community fund . 54
6.4. Suggestions regarding the local advisory group ..................... 55
7.Feedback on the consultation process 57
7.1. Comments supporting consultation process ........................... 57
7.2. Comments expressing concern consultation process ............ 57
7.3. Requests for further engagement .............................................. 59
Appendix A – Codes applied 60
Appendix B – Responses to closed questions 64
Appendix C – The consultation response form 66
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 5 Released
Final - Version 2.0
1. Executive summary
This report provides a summary of the responses received to the Step 4
consultation on the proposed Celtic Interconnector Project, undertaken by
EirGrid between 11 November 2019 and 02 February 2020.
The Celtic Interconnector would enable the transfer of electricity between
the south coast of Ireland and the north-west coast of France via
approximately 500 km of subsea cable and approximately 75 km of
underground cable in Ireland and France. The project has been designated
as a Project of Common Interest by the European Union and has been
recently awarded €530 million of grant funding under the Connecting
Europe Facility.
Following the Step 3 consultation which ran from 11 April 2019 to 10 June
2019, EirGrid identified an emerging best performing option for the landfall
location and three site options for a converter station site with one identified
as the emerging best performing option. EirGrid also identified proposed
underground cable routes for each of the options presented. Feedback on
these project options and views on the community gain fund related to this
project were sought during the Step 4 consultation period.
1.1. Consultation process
The consultation was owned and managed by EirGrid Group. Traverse, an
independent consultancy specialising in consultation analysis, was
commissioned to analyse responses to the consultation and report on their
findings. Responses to the consultation were submitted via an online form, by
email, by post, as hardcopy response forms completed during local
consultation events, and also delivered by hand directly to EirGrid’s office.
In total, this consultation received 1,047 responses. A detailed description of
Traverse’s approach to the handling, analysis and reporting of responses can
be found in Chapter 2.
1.2. Consultation responses
This report summarises respondents’ views on:
• the overall project,
• the assessments that have been carried out,
• the proposed landfall location at Claycastle Beach,
• three proposed options for the converter station site,
• the proposed underground cable routes,
• views on the proposed community gain fund, and
• the consultation process itself.
The responses to the consultation are organised by question, the sentiment of
their comment, such as benefits, concerns and suggestions, then by theme,
such as environmental issues, socio-economic issues, and deliverability.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 6 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Benefits
Respondents expressing support for the overall project cite greater
interconnection with Europe as one of the main benefits. A small number of
respondents indicate that they have no comment to make on the overall
project as they understand it in principle but choose to focus on the specific
sites proposed.
Concerns
Some respondents express general opposition to the project, with some
questioning the necessity of the Celtic Interconnector as an addition to the
national transmission system. A few respondents are concerned that the
interconnector would lead to nuclear power being imported into the Irish
national grid. A few respondents highlight concerns about the existing
substation at Knockraha, Cork as well as the proposed sites for the converter
station in this area, particularly regarding the potential impacts on noise
pollution, the rural character of the area and health outcomes. A small
number of respondents also express concern about how the converter
station could impact other infrastructure in their local area.
Views on the proposed landfall location
Most comments on the proposed landfall location express concern about
the environmental impact that could result from the use of the Claycastle
Beach site. A few respondents highlight potential problems with deliverability,
such as the distance from the landfall location to the system connection
point at Knockraha, as well as concerns about possible local socioeconomic
impact, such as the potential negative effects on fishing and access to the
beach for recreation. A small number of respondents also comment on the
potential impact of the proposed cabling route from Claycastle Beach,
suggesting that there may be environmental impacts and disruption to the
road network. Other respondents suggest the location is the most
appropriate site of the options previously presented and support EirGrid’s
proposed landfall location at Claycastle Beach.
Views on the proposed converter station sites
Respondents who express support for site 1 (Ballyadam) suggest the location
is appropriate as it is already zoned for industry and would therefore, in their
view, have the least impact on surrounding communities. A few respondents
express concern about the amount of AC cabling that would be needed to
connect the site with the Knockraha substation due to the distance involved.
A few respondents express concern about the level of infrastructure that
would be needed at site 1, suggesting it would potentially lead to an
increased risk of flooding. Other concerns respondents raised included the
potential for noise pollution and a negative visual impact.
Those who express support for site 9b, (Knockraha), suggest it would require
the least amount of cabling and provide opportunities to mitigate noise
issues. Respondents who oppose the site feel the elevated and exposed
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 7 Released
Final - Version 2.0
location would result in a significant visual impact, whilst also expressing
concern about the potential industrialisation of the rural area. Other
concerns centre around potential noise and light pollution and the negative
impact on ancient woodland and local ecology. Respondents also express
concern about the possible effect on the cultural and historical heritage of
the area, highlighting significant sites related to the War of Independence.
A few respondents express support for site12 - Kilquane (Meeleen), due to
the screening and noise reduction features of the surrounding landscape.
Concerns related to site 12 are similar to issues raised in relation to site 9b.
Respondents express concern about the potential industrialisation of the rural
area, suggesting the converter station would be visually unappealing and
that the natural screening provided by the conifer forest is only temporary.
They also comment that noise from the existing substation is already a
problem and express concern about the potential impact on biodiversity
and the risk of water and soil contamination. As with site 9b, respondents
highlight the cultural and historical heritage of the area. Respondents also
express concern about the ability of the road network to cope with
construction and operational traffic, suggesting this would negatively affect
the local economy.
A general theme across comments about all three sites is the lack of benefit
that a converter station would bring to the local economy.
Views on the community fund
Most respondents who made suggestions regarding the community fund
generally supported the idea of investing in local community facilities so
there would be a positive legacy from the project.
A small number of respondents felt a community fund was an attempt to
bribe the local community into accepting the project.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 8 Released
Final - Version 2.0
2. Introduction
2.1. About this report
This report summarises the responses received to the Step 4 consultation on
the Celtic Interconnector Project (Figure 1 below shows EirGrid’s six-step
approach to grid development). This consultation sought feedback on the
assessments that have been carried out, the proposed landfall location at
Claycastle Beach, the three sites proposed for the converter station, the
underground cable routes, how a community fund could ensure benefits are
accrued to the local area, and the consultation process itself.
2.2. About the Celtic Interconnector Project
The Celtic Interconnector is a proposed electrical link which would enable
the movement of electricity between Ireland and France. EirGrid has been
working with their counterpart in France, Réseau de Transport d’Électricité
(RTÉ) to develop an interconnector between the two countries. In October
2019 the European Commission announced that it would provide €530 million
of grant funding to this project.
If planning permission is granted and should the project proceed, a final
decision to commence construction is expected in 2022. It is anticipated that
the Interconnector would then go live in 2026.
Further information about the Celtic Interconnector Project can be found on
the EirGrid website:
www.eirgridgroup.com/the-grid/projects/celtic-interconnector/
2.3. About this consultation
Between 11 November 2019 and 02 February 2020 EirGrid consulted on the
Celtic Interconnector Project, in line with its six-step approach to grid
development, shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: EirGrid’s six step approach to grid development projects
Step 4 of the consultation and engagement process. During Step 3, EirGrid
conducted studies and consulted on three options for landfall locations and
six options for converter station location zones. Following the Step 3
consultation, these options were assessed under the five different categories,
as displayed in Figure 2 below.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 9 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Figure 2: EirGrid assessment categories
A number of common themes emerged from the Step 3 consultation. These
are treated in greater detail in EirGrid’s Step 3 consultation response
document available here http://www.eirgridgroup.com/site-
files/library/EirGrid/Celtic-Interconnector-Step-3-Consultation-Response-
Document.pdf with key themes emerging as:
• noise,
• health,
• visual impact,
• farming and land use, and
• traffic and the road network.
This feedback along with additional analysis of the Step 3 options helped to
identify the emerging best performing landfall location and the three
converter station sites along with associated underground cable routes
which were presented in this consultation.
Of the three proposed converter station sites:
• site 12 – Kilquane (Meeleen) performed well in EirGrid’s assessments and
was consulted on as the emerging best performing option. EirGrid
consider that this site addresses some of the key stakeholder feedback
received in step 3;
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 10 Released
Final - Version 2.0
• site 9b Knockraha performed well in EirGrid’s assessments and was
consulted on as a viable alternative; and
• site 1 Ballyadam did not perform well in EirGrid’s assessments. However, it
was consulted on as EirGrid continue to work to see if there is a location
within the IDA Park at Ballyadam which could mitigate some of the
identified issues of the current site.
Consultation Promotion
As part of the Step 4 public consultation process EirGrid:
• developed a specific project update brochure and updated the Celtic
Interconnector webpages;
• held 7 public information meetings across East Cork, in locations close to
the proposed landfall site, and the potential converter station sites;
• called to local residents to advise of the project and the information
evenings;
• wrote to identified stakeholders at the outset of the consultation process
to advise of the progress of the project, provide contact details of the
Community Liaison Officer (CLO) and advise of information evenings;
• Shared information via community group administrators for distribution to
their membership.
• posted a link to the online feedback form on the EirGrid website;
• provided a dedicated email and freepost address to receive consultation
responses;
• advertised the consultation process and upcoming information events in
local and national newspapers; and
• advertised on EirGrid’s own Facebook and Twitter social media pages,
through the Public Participation Network, on local community Facebook
pages and via local groups in cooperation with local representatives.
EirGrid also engaged with local representatives, presenting to Cobh
Municipal District Council and East Cork Municipal District Council at council
meetings in advance of the consultation launch, as well as briefing
councillors and local community and interest groups with email updates.
Local officials and representatives were invited to attend the consultation
events that were held, with some attending events and a few responding
directly to the consultation.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 11 Released
Final - Version 2.0
2.4. Responses received
In total, this consultation received 1,047 responses. Table 1 shows a
breakdown of the types of responses received.
Table 1: Response Types Received
Campaigns and petitions
The Knockraha Environment Group organised a campaign response which
was received from 928 respondents.
The campaign outlined their opposition to the Celtic Interconnector Project,
their negative impression of the consultation event held in Knockraha and
the publicity it received. They also express several concerns about the
converter station sites 9b and 12, including the potential for:
• health and safety impacts,
• noise pollution,
• visual impact and light pollution,
• proximity to existing housing,
• change of land use,
• the impact on heritage sites,
• the impact on wildlife,
• inadequate infrastructure, and
• property devaluation.
Their responses are included in the main body of the report and it is
highlighted where campaign responses have made comments on the topic.
2.5. Response channels
There were four channels provided for responses to be submitted to the
consultation:
• online: by using the dedicated consultation webform accessible via the
Response type Total Number of responses
received
Online response form 53
Hardcopy response forms 33
Letters and emails (excluding
campaign responses)
33
Letters and emails (campaign
responses)
928
TOTAL 1,047
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 12 Released
Final - Version 2.0
EirGrid website;
• email: by emailing the project’s dedicated email address,
[email protected], administered by the project team at
EirGrid;
• post: by sending in a hardcopy response to the address provided by
EirGrid; and
• in person: by attending a local consultation engagement event and
handing a hardcopy response to a representative from EirGrid.
2.6. Data processing
EirGrid appointed Traverse, an independent consultancy specialising in
consultation analysis, to process and analyse the responses received to this
consultation and produce this report.
Data protection
Traverse and EirGrid agreed processes to ensure all data was handled in
accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
The online and hardcopy response forms included statements on data
protection, including respondents’ rights under GDPR, explaining how data
would be used and for what purpose. Though respondents who provided
views in other formats did not receive a data protection statement, care has
been taken to ensure that no individual respondents are identifiable in this
report.
Submissions received were recorded in a database for analysis and
categorised into types (for example letter, email or response form).
Development of the coding framework
To analyse the open text responses consistently, Traverse developed a
coding framework. Each code represents a specific issue, and these are
grouped together according to unifying themes and sentiments.
- For example, “Converter station site 1 - concern – environment – air quality”
A basic thematic structure was developed following a review of a sample of
the submissions received and further codes were added in response to
additional issues identified following a detailed review of all consultation
responses. The coding framework was adapted as analysis of the responses
was undertaken to ensure that it reflected the nuances of the responses.
The detailed coding framework is shown in Appendix A.
Using the coding framework
The coding was used to group together similar comments and summarise
them thematically. In this way, this summary report draws on and reflects the
responses received and the full range of issues raised by respondents.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 13 Released
Final - Version 2.0
2.7. Reporting
Structure of the report
Chapter 3 summarises general comments made about the proposed Celtic
Interconnector Project.
Chapter 4 presents a summary of comments on the proposed landfall
location site at Claycastle Beach. It also presents other comments related to
other landfall location sites and proposed DC cable route.
Chapter 5 presents a summary of comments on each of the proposed
Converter station options, and the proposed AC cable routes. It also reviews
comments made about the assessment process undertaken by EirGrid.
Chapter 6 summarises comments made about EirGrid’s proposals to work
with the community, including how a community fund could be best applied
and suggestions relating the local advisory group.
Chapter 7 presents comments made about the consultation process.
Responses to closed questions
Charts summarising responses to the closed questions used in the online
survey and the hardcopy response form are included in this report at
Appendix B. Whilst these responses were valuable, the very low number of
responses means that these cannot be considered to be representative. As
such, whilst these charts have been included to ensure that the views of
those respondents who completed the closed questions were represented in
this report, care should be taken in drawing any wider conclusions from the
charts.
Open text responses
The qualitative analysis set out in this report summarises the responses given
to open questions in the consultation form and also responses in other
formats, such as via letters and emails.
Reading the report
As well as landowners, project stakeholders and groups likely to be most
affected by the project, who were invited to respond, the consultation was
open to anyone who wanted to respond. EirGrid undertook a number of
promotional activities (highlighted above) to encourage people to
participate, including the groups most likely to be affected. However, as with
any consultation, it is important to note that the responses were ultimately
from a self-selecting group of people, i.e. those who chose to respond. As
such these responses should not be viewed in the same light as an opinion
poll with a statistically representative sample of the population. They do
however offer a valuable insight into the views and opinions about the
project, and the current proposals.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 14 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Numbers in the report
In summarising the responses to open questions, the following quantifiers are
used:
• a small number / a few – comments which were made by around 1 to 6
respondents;
• some – comments which were made by around 7 to 19 respondents; and
• several – comments which were made by approximately 20 respondents
or more.
Due to the spread of comments over a wide range of topics, there were not
sufficient numbers of responses on particular topics to necessitate further
quantifiers.
These quantifying terms are intended to provide a sense of scale and
proportion, and to help make the report more accessible to readers.
Traverse’s intention is to reflect accurately the range of issues raised, rather
than to attribute weight to the number of respondents raising them.
As noted above the most common responses to this consultation, nearly 90%,
were campaign responses containing identical text. As a result, where
campaigns have commented on an issue this would be made clear in the
text to distinguish it from comments made by respondents not using a
campaign template.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 15 Released
Final - Version 2.0
3. Feedback on the Celtic Interconnector
Project overall
3.1. Overview
This Chapter sets out comments made by respondents on the project as a
whole, discussing first comments that were supportive of the proposals, then
those which were opposed to the project and finally responses which made
suggestions in relation to the project.
3.2. Comments supporting the Celtic Interconnector Project
General
Support A few respondents express support for the Celtic
Interconnector Project in general, supporting the
ambition for greater interconnection with Europe.
3.3. Comments expressing concern about the Celtic
Interconnector Project
General
Opposition Some respondents express a general opposition to the
plans to construct the Celtic Interconnector. Many of
these respondents do not go into detail explaining why
they oppose the project. Where respondents have
outlined in detail concerns about the proposals the
comments are captured in the relevant section below.
This included the campaign responses, where
respondents comment that they “vehemently oppose
the need for the Celtic Interconnector project at all for
Ireland”.
A small number of respondents express other concerns
including how unfair they feel the project would be on
landowners who would have cables traveling through
their property, and the lack of employment opportunities
they perceive would come from the project.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 16 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Environment
Existing
substation1
Some respondents and the campaign respondents refer
to the impact that they feel the existing substation has.
They contend the original siting of the substation in the
area was flawed and causes significant visual disruption
and emits noise pollution that affects the residents of the
area. They often suggest that the existing substation
should be scaled back, rather than adding more
infrastructure to the area and the existing substation.
A few respondents further feel that complaints they have
made and issues they have raised about the existing
substation are ignored, suggesting this gives them very
little faith that EirGrid will take account of their views
about further developments to the site.
Rural location A small number of respondents contend the existing
substation should not be expanded due to the rural
nature of the area around it and suggest instead that it
should be scaled back.
Noise /
vibration
A few respondents and the campaign respondents,
comment on the impact that they believe the Celtic
Interconnector Project would have on noise levels in
general, contending that cables and substations emit a
buzzing noise that disturbs people and wildlife. Where
respondents comment on the noise impact they expect
from a substation at a proposed location, the comments
are reported on in the relevant substation section of
Chapter 5.
Production of
C02
A small number of respondents question EirGrid’s claims
that the project will reduce CO2 on the basis that they
feel much of the energy will be produced by nuclear
power, which they consider not to be carbon neutral.
1 Electricity Supply Board (ESB) Networks own and operate an existing substation in Knockraha which has been in place since the 1960’s.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 17 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Socio-economic
Need Some respondents and the campaign respondents,
question whether there is a need for the Celtic
Interconnector Project at all, often suggesting there is no
need or that the need is limited compared to the
negative impacts they perceive would result from the
project.
These respondents contend that Ireland produces
adequate power, and that the project is not being driven
by need at all, often suggesting it is instead driven by
financial motives.
Nuclear power A few respondents express concern that the Celtic
Interconnector would result in nuclear power being
utilised in Ireland. They contend that Ireland has been
strongly anti-nuclear and that as France generates a
large amount of its energy through nuclear power, this
would result in nuclear energy being imported onto the
Irish grid.
This concern is shared by respondents using the
campaign template as they contend production of
electricity produced by nuclear fission is prohibited from
being used on the national grid. They suggest France
generates 71.6% of its energy from nuclear power and
express concern about importing this type of power onto
the Irish grid network.
Health A small number of respondents raise concerns about
possible health impacts for people living near any of the
supporting infrastructure for the Celtic Interconnector
Project. They suggest there have been increased cancer
rates around the existing substation at Knockraha and
feel this may be connected to the facility. They suggest
this should be investigated to see if there is any link before
any more electricity infrastructure is added.
This concern is also raised by campaign respondents who
believe extremely low frequency (ELF) electric and
magnetic fields (EMF) could travel through the walls of a
house and cause negative health impacts. They suggest
the International Agency for Research on Cancer have
found ELFs are possibly carcinogenic to humans and feel
this raises questions about whether the Celtic
Interconnector Project should proceed.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 18 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Delivery
Flexible grid
networks
A small number of respondents comment on the wider
grid network that the Celtic interconnector Project would
connect to. They suggest local generation of electricity,
including individual households with solar panels returning
power to the grid, could be impacted by the proposed
Celtic Interconnector.
Others propose that there is a need to facilitate locally
installed generation and suggest if the proposed
Greenlink Interconnector is also connected to the grid,
the relative benefits for the Celtic Interconnector are
reduced. They suggest there is a need to be proactive to
avoid isolated transmission loops with little opportunity for
penetration of locally installed generation. They request
EirGrid consider any impact the project may have on the
aim to increase local generation.
Other
infrastructure
A few respondents, express concern about how the
converter station would impact the generators at
Aghada Generating Station. They contend that the
current analysis of the effect of a sudden disconnection
of power is based on a disconnection of the East West
Interconnector which has a capacity of 500 MW,
whereas the proposed Celtic Interconnector has a
capacity of 700 MW. They suggest that this needs to be
assessed further to allow for protection settings to
accommodate this.
An additional concern is the potential impact the HVDC
converter station could have on the shaft-line of a turbine
generator set. They contend that the converter station
could cause frequencies to align in such a way that
could lead to damage in the turbines and generators.
Changes to
the existing
substation
As well as expressing concerns about the converter
station site 12 and 9b, the campaign responses express
opposition to the proposed changes to the existing
electrical substation as they believe it would result in
further industrialisation of a rural area.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 19 Released
Final - Version 2.0
3.4. Suggestions relating to the Celtic Interconnector Project
Alternatives
Locations A small number of respondents suggest alternative
locations for the entire project, contending that it would
be sensible not to connect to the grid at Knockraha.
Proposals include:
• an unspecified existing substation in an industrial area
to avoid a single point of failure;
• a new substation and converter station constructed
elsewhere to futureproof the grid;
• extending the marine route so it comes to land at Cork
harbour and then building a converter station in the
grounds of Aghada power station; and
• an alternative substation along the southern coast of
Ireland to avoid inland cables.
Supporting
infrastructure
A small number of respondents suggest EirGrid could
provide financial support for a bridge crossing Youghal
harbour. They contend this could become an “energy
bridge” with lots of supporting renewable energy projects
alongside the structure of the bridge and could
potentially shorten the distance of the marine cable
required for the proposed Celtic Interconnector.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 20 Released
Final - Version 2.0
4. Feedback on proposed landfall location
4.1. Overview
This Chapter summarises comments on the proposed landfall location at
Claycastle Beach, the DC cable route and any alternative locations
suggested. Where respondents are commenting on any matters relating to
the location of the converter station site, including AC cable routes from the
converter station site to the existing substation at Knockraha their comments
are included in Chapter 5.
4.2. Comments supporting Claycastle Beach
General
General
A few respondents feel that this is the most suitable
location out of all the three proposed options, without
commenting on why they believe this to be the case.
4.3. Comments expressing concern about Claycastle Beach
Delivery
Interference A few respondents express concern with potential
interference with other technical assets. A few of these
respondents also express reservations about the potential
impact on utility services, including water and sewage,
due to roadworks, as well as the local community at
large.
Distance from
Knockraha
A small number of respondents feel the cost of installing
underground DC cables from Claycastle Beach to
Knockraha is prohibitive.
A few of these respondents question whether Claycastle
Beach is the best option due to environmental, technical
and economic issues they expect it would cause, without
explicitly stating what these may be.
Environment
General A few respondents contend that as this land is currently
undeveloped it should not be disrupted by this process.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 21 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Socioeconomic
Fisheries A few respondents were of the impression that dredging
would be needed to prepare the landfall location which
they contend would impact the fishing grounds used for
local industry for over a year.
Heritage A small number of respondents express concern over
potential harm or loss to the Country’s heritage as a result
of the project, without explicitly stating any locations.
Public amenity A few respondents contend that Claycastle Beach is a
public amenity which is enjoyed by local residents and
should not be considered for EirGrid’s proposal.
Tourism A few respondents express concern about how they
would be able to access the car park at Claycastle
Beach if this location is chosen.
General
Opposition A small number of respondents oppose the landfall
location being at Claycastle Beach, without any
explanation as to why they oppose it.
4.4. Suggestions relating to Claycastle Beach
Suggestion
Suggestion A few respondents suggest that access to the beach is
available across land from the old railway station.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 22 Released
Final - Version 2.0
4.5. Comments about the proposed DC cabling route
Concern
Environment A few respondents comment on environmental concerns
they anticipate being caused by the DC cable route
from the landfall location to any of the proposed
converter station sites. This includes the concern that all
the necessary groundworks would damage the native
hedgerows and damage the rural nature of the area.
A small number of respondents express concern about
how the DC cabling may impact the proposed
Ballyvergan Marsh / Green.
Hydrology A small number of respondents express concern about
the perceived impact of the proposed landfall location
on drainage in the area, without going into detail how
they think this would occur.
Road Network A few respondents indicate that they feel the DC cable
routes would cause significant disruption to the road
network. They are particularly concerned about delays
between Killeagh and Castlemartyr as they contend that
there were significant delays in the same area when
maintenance on pipework was being undertaken.
A small number of respondents make general comments
expressing their view that the roads in Knockraha are
unsuitable and the disruption they expect would occur if
DC cabling needs to be installed in the area.
Where respondents refer specifically to AC cables near
Knockraha, these comments are captured in the section
on the proposed converter station sties to which they
refer.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 23 Released
Final - Version 2.0
4.6. Suggestions relating to the proposed DC cabling route
Suggestion
Cable routes A small number of respondents make suggestions about
the proposed cable routes, these include:
• ensuring cables are underground all the way to
Knockraha, and
• the old railway line is followed as far as Churchtown,
before following the N25 to Ballyadam. Although they
do suggest that if this is not possible, the proposed
route is suitable.
4.7. Suggestions on other landfall locations
Other Location
Suggestion A small number of respondents make alternative
suggestions for landfall locations. Whitegate is the most
commonly proposed alternative, as respondents suggest
it is nearer to the sea, and so would cause less disruption.
They further contend the converter station could also be
located here, and that this would be more cost efficient
for EirGrid.
Other places suggested included Aghada or Little Island,
as respondents contend that this would lead to shorter
inland cable routes.
A few respondents offer suggestions for issues they feel
warrant further consideration, such as the planned board
walk from Claycastle to Redbarn and the protected bird
sanctuary at Ballyvergan bog.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 24 Released
Final - Version 2.0
5. Feedback on proposed converter station
sites
5.1. Overview
This Chapter summarises comments on the proposed converter station sites.
The shortlisted sites set out in the consultation document were:
• Site 1 - Ballyadam,
• Site 9b - Knockraha, and
• Site 12 - Kilquane (Meeleen).
Four other sites were considered but did not perform as well in assessments,
however the consultation asked respondents to provide any new information
about the sites that EirGrid should consider.
As well as any opinions on the specific locations, respondents were asked for
any comments they may have had on the assessment process and studies
undertaken as part of the project. Where respondents have commented on
an element of the assessments and selection processes that directly impact
their view on one of the proposed sites, their comments are summarised in
relation to the relevant site. Where respondents make comments on the
assessment criteria in principle, or without relating their comments to a
specific site, they are discussed at the end of this Chapter.
5.2. Comments supporting converter station site 1- Ballyadam
General
General A small number of respondents express general support
for locating the converter station at Ballyadam, without
explaining in detail why they think this is the case, often
just making general comments such as “it is the best of
the options presented”.
A few respondents support locating the construction at
Carrigtwohill because they contend existing industries
have not had issues with the caves.
This included a TD who commented that they felt this
would be the most appropriate location for a converter
station site.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 25 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Delivery
Existing
infrastructure
Some respondents believe the converter station site at
Ballyadam is a suitable location as it is already an
industrialised area. They suggest the site is already zoned
for industrial use and the development would not look out
of place. A small number also contend that the
necessary infrastructure to support the infrastructure is
already in place.
Suitable site A few respondents make comments about the
deliverability of the scheme at Ballyadam, including
support for EirGrid’s work in identifying another location in
the IDA Park at Ballyadam.
A few respondents believe that Ballyadam is a suitable
location for the converter station site. They contend that
cost should not prohibit the site being used and others
believe that geological issues can be resolved by
building on a stable location.
Flooding and
cabling
A small number of respondents dispute the suggestion
that land in the area may pose a risk of flooding,
contending that existing developments have not been
hindered in this way. Of these, a few respondents feel
that good design and construction would satisfactorily
remove any potential risk.
A few respondents believe EirGrid’s concerns over
cabling are overstated and suggest there is no reason
laying cables from Ballyadam to Knockraha would be
any more complex than laying cables to facilitate other
converter station sites.
Space A small number of respondents comment that the
Ballyadam site is 150 acres so can easily accommodate
the converter station. They suggest it be given further
consideration.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 26 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Environment
Landscape
and visual
impact
A few respondents comment on the landscape and
visual impact. They contend this site would have less of a
visual impact because the development would fit the
existing character of the area. Others suggest the site
can be easily screened from the community.
A small number of respondents are concerned about the
potential environmental impact of constructing a
converter station in terms of local biodiversity, suggesting
it should be built at Ballyadam because it is a brownfield
site, and would therefore have less of an environmental
impact than at the other proposed locations.
Noise and
vibration
impact
A small number of respondents contend there would be
less of a noise impact on communities if site 1 at
Ballyadam is chosen. They suggest the area around
Ballyadam has an existing level of background noise
unlike other proposed sites.
Socio-economic
Least impact A small number of respondents believe the converter
station site at Ballyadam is a suitable location as, in their
opinion, it would be the least disruptive for surrounding
communities. A few of these respondents further contend
that even if there is a higher cost associated with this site,
this should be considered acceptable as there is likely to
be a less significant impact on local communities overall.
Local benefit A few respondents support the development and
contend that the proposal to provide fibre optic cables
alongside the electrical cables would have a positive
impact on existing businesses and attract new business to
the area.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 27 Released
Final - Version 2.0
5.3. Comments expressing concern about the converter station
site 1- Ballyadam
Delivery
Equipment at
Knockraha
A small number of respondents oppose constructing the
converter station at Ballyadam because this would
necessitate the installation of new equipment at
Knockraha, to which they object.
Too far from
connection
point
A few respondents express concern about the distance
between the converter station at Ballyadam and the
Knockraha station, with potential for additional costs.
Disruption to
roads
A small number of respondents contend that using the
Ballyadam site would cause inconvenience, as they feel
laying the necessary underground cables would cause
disruption on the road network, such as the back road to
Midleton.
Underground
caves
A small number of respondents wish to draw attention to
the underground cave system connecting the site to
Cork harbour.
Environment
Noise and
sound
A small number of respondents contend there would be
more of a noise impact on communities if this site were
chosen. This includes the concern that whilst there may
be noise from roads already in the area, this fluctuates as
opposed to the noise from the proposed converter
station which they expect to be 24 hours a day.
Flooding A few respondents express concern about the risk of
flooding if Ballyadam was chosen as the ultimate
converter station site. They contend that the area around
Ballyadam has been susceptible to flooding in recent
years, and that nobody, including EirGrid for this project,
has conducted a thorough assessment of the
groundwater flows in the area.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 28 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Landscape
and visual
impact
A small number of respondents express concern that their
properties would overlook the proposed site, questioning
whether there would be opportunities to provide natural
screening.
A few respondents express further concern that the site is
located within a Greenbelt area that is also a high value
scenic landscape. They state that it should be preserved
from development.
Socio-economic
Local
economy
A small number of respondents feel the land would be
used more effectively by other businesses, which would
generate employment, rather than for a converter station
which would not.
Disruption due
to cable works
A few respondents express concern about possible
disruption to local business and residents as a result of the
works needed to install the necessary cables.
5.4. Suggestions for the converter station site 1- Ballyadam
Suggestions
Location A small number of respondents suggest the converter site
be located on the IDA lands at site 1 in Ballyadam.
5.5. Comments supporting converter station site 9b - Knockraha
General
Support A few respondents express general support for converter
station site 9b at Knockraha.
Delivery
Less cabling A small number of respondents express support for the site
at Knockraha as they feel it would require the least
amount of cabling and trench digging.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 29 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Environment
Noise and
vibration
A few respondents suggest that noise issues at this site
could be mitigated more effectively than at other sites.
This included using a berm (a raised barrier made of
compacted soil) as an effective sound barrier to absorb
sound.
5.6. Comments expressing concern about converter station site
9b - Knockraha
General
Opposition Some respondents raise general opposition to the proposal
to locate the converter station site at Knockraha. They
contend that the area already contains too much energy-
related infrastructure. Others believe the scheme does not
benefit the local community and say it is the most
objectionable site of all those proposed.
The campaign responses also express opposition to the
converter station site at Knockraha.
Environment
General
A small number of respondents express general concerns
about the potential environmental impact of locating the
converter station at Knockraha. They contend that this
would compound what they perceive to be an original
bad decision to build a substation at Knockraha.
A few respondents also raise concern about the working
practices of EirGrid and ESB, contending that previously
cables had leaked, causing damage to the environment.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 30 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Landscape
and visual
Some respondents feel the visual impact of a converter
station at Knockraha would be significant. They are
concerned that it would stand 25 metres high on an
elevated and exposed site. They express concern about
the lack of natural screening and suggest the nature of
the site means it cannot be constructed. A few
respondents believe that EirGrid favour this option
because it is cheaper and are neglecting the perceived
visual impact.
Some respondents say the converter station is too close to
local residents, whose concerns about light pollution have
not been addressed. They believe that the light pollution
would damage residents’ health and disturb wildlife.
A few respondents contend the construction would
exacerbate existing visual issues and proposed mitigation
plans are inadequate. Others state that the roads are
part of the landscape and charm and fear the
construction would damage this.
The campaign organised by the Knockraha Environment
Group also suggests the visual impact would be high,
commenting that the site would have “a significant
overbearing impact on nearby homes”.
Rural location Some respondents believe Knockraha has rural nature
that would change and be industrialised as a result of the
converter station being situated there. A small number of
respondents suggest these proposals contravene Cork
County Council’s zoning designation of the area as
agricultural.
A few respondents additionally contend that the
development would necessitate other infrastructure
improvements that would further damage the nature of
the area. They believe that no amount of mitigation
would make up for this loss.
A small number of respondents claim the countryside is
already populated with steel pylons, poles and electricity
lines and others complain that there is already an
industrial plant in the area. They fear further industrial
creep in the rural area.
The campaign responses contend the proposed site lies
within the Rural Housing Control Zone and the proposal
therefore is not in line with the Cork County Development
Plan.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 31 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Noise and
vibrations
Some respondents express concerns about the potential
noise pollution they believe would be generated by the
site. They often comment on the noise from the current
substation and pylons, suggesting the addition of a
converter station in close proximity to residential
properties would create a greater noise impact on the
community. A few respondents suggest this would result in
negative health impacts on the local population, farm
animals and wildlife.
A small number of respondents suggest the proposed use
of high-voltage direct current would increase the level of
noise. Others contend the site at Knockraha is particularly
inappropriate because it sits on a hill where sound is
exacerbated by the weather. A few respondents are also
concerned that, unlike the Ballyadam site, there is no
background noise at Knockraha to mask noise from the
converter station.
Respondents using the campaign template also contend
there would be significant negative impacts on noise
levels, suggesting noise studies have shown the additional
audible noise could reach higher than 100 decibels (dB).
Wildlife and
ecology
Some respondents raise concerns about the potential
impact on the wildlife and ecology of the area around
Knockraha. They often highlight the potential for negative
impact on areas of ancient and protected woodland,
such as Ballynagaul, which is a native woodland and a
habitat for barn owls. A few respondents are also
concerned that the construction might disturb bat
habitats, which they claim is illegal.
Some respondents are further concerned that the
proposal would destroy the biodiversity of the area and
contend that glare from artificial lights would impact
wetland habitats that are home to amphibians.
A few respondents feel that EirGrid, and other agencies
such as ESB, have shown no demonstrable will to protect
the countryside.
The campaign responses also feel the site would have
negative impacts on local wildlife, suggesting the area
contains protected species such as yellowhammer and
barn owls, as well as glens and streams, which are
important assets for a range of species.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 32 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Hydrology A small number of respondents are concerned about the
impact on the local water table which they feel could
result from locating the converter station at Knockraha.
They state that in their opinion groundwater is extremely
vulnerable to potential cable leaks because streams feed
into to the Butlerstown River which feeds into the
Glashaboy River. Others state that the existing substation
at Knockraha contains a septic tank system that would
need upgrading.
A few respondents express concern as they suggest other
developments in the area have increased the risk of
flooding. A few respondents also state most people use
wells and they raise concerns about any potential impact
on drinking water.
Respondents using the campaign response suggest it is
unclear how a low-moderate ranking was assigned with
regard to waterbodies, drainage and flood risk at this site
and also express concern that the groundwater is
extremely vulnerable to potential cable leaks.
Air pollution A few respondents raise concerns about air pollution from
the proposal but do not provide further detail.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 33 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Socio-economic
Heritage Some respondents raise concerns about what they see as
a negative impact on the heritage of Knockraha. Others
contend that they are only custodians of the land for
future generations. This is a concern shared by
respondents using the Knockraha Environment Group
response template. Respondents cite a number of
significant sites of archaeological and historical
importance such as:
• Liberty Hall;
• Knockraha East underground grenade factory at
Ballynanelagh;
• the IRA courthouse;
• the arms dump in a church;
• the Cork No.1 Brigade grenade factory in Butlerstown
glen, west of Knockraha;
• the Ballingohig bridge;
• the Carrolls Pond execution area;
• the Knockraha East bomb factory;
• the first training base for the 4th Battalion Flying
Column; and
• the site of key 4th Battalion area safe houses.
Community
impact
Some respondents contend there would be a significant
impact on the local community if the Knockraha site is
chosen. A small number are concerned the converter
station would exacerbate existing problems with anti-
social behaviour and crime. A few respondents raise
further concerns that the construction would take place
with little regard for the community.
A few respondents highlight concerns that the converter
station site would have a negative impact on
recreational activities such as horse-riding, golf and
shooting.
A few respondents further suggest that the local school
and businesses could suffer as it could drive families
away, eroding the quality of services for residents.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 34 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Property value Some respondents express concern that their homes
could lose value as a result of this development. They
contend that it would turn prospective homeowners
away. A few respondents express frustration that no
compensation scheme has been suggested.
Respondents using the campaign template also express
concern about the potential for their properties to lose
value as a result of the development.
Health and
safety
Some respondents raise concerns about the health of
local residents. They are concerned that living in close
proximity to a high voltage converter station could
increase rates of childhood leukaemia. They further
contend that electricity that is converted from DC to AC
creates massive electric fields / magnetic fields /
radiation which could have a negative impact on health.
A few respondents also raise concerns regarding safety
because they believe that emergency services would not
be able to respond in time to incidents at the site.
The campaign responses also comment that there could
be significant negative health impacts as a result of the
converter station being close to people, as well as
suggesting the site is unsuitable for emergency service
access.
Local
economic
impact
Some respondents are concerned about what they
perceive would be a negative impact on the local
economy. They suggest that the site is situated in an
agricultural region and livestock and crops would be
disturbed, damaging farmers’ businesses They note that
disruption to farming would have a knock-on impact on
businesses in the farming supply chain.
Traffic and
congestion
Some respondents are concerned the proposal would
have a negative impact on traffic and congestion in
general, without going into detail. A small number of
respondents contend the site is inadequate for heavy
traffic because the roads are old and narrow. A few
respondents further state that laying the cables would
cause further disruption to the roads and lead to
additional congestion. A small number note in particular
the effect this could have on access to Water Rock golf
course.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 35 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Delivery
Infrastructure Some respondents suggest the local infrastructure is
inadequate for the amount of construction-related traffic
they expect to see. They are particularly concerned that
the road network cannot support this extra traffic or the
heavy or oversized vehicles the construction would
require. A few respondents also contend that EirGrid has
not made enough effort to assess the cumulative impacts
when considering site 9b. A small number of respondents
make similar comments about both sites 9b and 12, their
comments about site 12 are discussed in more detail in
section 5.9 below.
Respondents using the campaign template also contend
the local road infrastructure is unsuitable to support the
work required to construct the converter station site at
Knockraha.
Local
opposition
A few respondents suggest the level of local opposition to
the site at Knockraha could impact on the delivery of the
project itself. They contend EirGrid would not face as
many local obstacles at other locations. This was
reflected in comments by a local TD, who feels there
would be opposition from local residents.
Cable routes A few respondents contend that the route required for
the cables at site 12 would lead to an additional cost,
making it a surprising choice.
5.7. Comments supporting converter station site 12 - Kilquane
(Meeleen)
General
Support A small number of respondents express the view that the
Kilquane (Meeleen) site is their preferred location for the
converter station, whilst a few respondents rate it as their
second choice.
Environment
Landscape
and visual
impact
A few respondents feel that the site at Kilquane
(Meeleen) is suitable due to the high level of natural
screening provided by the adjacent woods.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 36 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Noise and
vibration
A small number of respondents feel the site at Kilquane
(Meeleen) would have less of a noise impact than at
other sites, particularly because the landscape provides
some natural noise reduction.
Socioeconomic
Less
community
impact
A few respondents believe the site at Kilquane (Meeleen)
would have the least impact on the local community due
to its distance from residential properties.
Deliverability
Close to
Knockraha
station
A small number of respondents contend it makes sense to
locate the converter station at Kilquane (Meeleen), as its
proximity to the Knockraha station means less AC cabling
would be required to connect the two sites.
5.8. Comments expressing concern about converter station
site 12 – Kilquane (Meeleen)
General
Opposition Some respondents express general opposition to the
proposed site, with a few wishing to emphasise their
objections, commenting that they “vehemently oppose”
the locating of the converter station at site 12.
A small number of respondents contend there is already
a large concentration of electrical infrastructure in
County Cork and in the area around Kilquane (Meeleen)
in particular, suggesting that limits should therefore be
placed on further developments. They also feel that
reviews completed by EirGrid have not adequately
considered the effects of the converter station on
residents, habitats and businesses.
Other respondents express opposition as they feel the
development would bring no benefits to the local
community.
The campaign responses also express strong general
opposition to the converter station site at Kilquane
(Meeleen), citing many of the same reasons.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 37 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Environment
General
opposition
A small number of respondents express concern about
the site location, due to potential pollution and
disturbance to the tranquillity of the area.
Rural location Some respondents believe there would be significant risk
to the environment and rural character of the area if the
Kilquane (Meeleen) site were chosen. Respondents
contend the building of a converter station would lead to
industrialisation of the area, highlighting that this would
change the land use category from ‘agriculture’ to
‘utility’, which they contend would contravene Cork
County Council’s Local Area Development Plan.
A few respondents highlight other issues that they feel
make the site unsuitable, including:
• civil work accompanying the development, such as
road widening, damaging local ecosystems;
• the negative impact on the country roads of
Knockraha, which are considered an asset and scenic
feature of the area;
• a lack benefit for the local environment and the
potential to discourage population growth;
• the existing overhead lines negatively affecting the
rural character of area;
• the location being a Greenfield site in the middle of
the countryside.
• the creation of a large industrial site so close to the
village; and
• the converter station setting a precedent for further
development.
In addition, a small number of respondents contend the
installation of electricity cables would destroy the
character and historic nature of roads in the area.
The campaign responses, which include the concerns
mentioned above, also contend the site falls within a
Rural Housing Control Zone, which would be threatened
by the proposed development.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 38 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Landscape
and visual
impact
Some respondents suggest that the converter station
would be visually very unappealing, highlighting that the
existing substation is already visually obtrusive. A few
respondents feel this negative visual impact would have
a detrimental effect on the everyday life and
recreational activities of local people.
A few respondents also express concern about the height
of the converter station, contending that buildings would
be visible to most residents in the area. They suggest that
this would contravene council planning restrictions and
feel this would be an abuse of power on the part of
EirGrid, as they are able to bypass traditional planning
requirements.
A few respondents suggest that the conifer forest would
only form a temporary screen as, they suggest, it would
likely require felling in the next 10 years. Respondents
suggest that appropriate broadleaved continuous forest
cover would take many decades to establish.
A few respondents contend the forest only screens the
view from one side, and that the converter station would
still be clearly visible from Knockraha.
A small number of respondents express concern that the
converter station would significantly increase levels of
light pollution, highlighting the negative affect this could
have on the sleeping patterns of humans and animals.
The campaign responses, in addition to the concerns
discussed above, also suggest the visual impact would
be high, suggesting the forest would be felled and so
question EirGrid suggesting its visual impact would be low.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 39 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Noise and
vibration
Several respondents express concern about the level of
noise that could be emitted from the converter station.
These respondents suggest there is a constant buzzing
noise emitted from the existing substation and powerlines.
They stress that any additional noise could have a
significant negative impact, including potentially
restricting the growth of the village and causing stress for
local families. A few respondents also suggest that noise
during construction could negatively affect local
businesses, particularly the local dog training school. A
few respondents also point out that noise from the
motorway and karting track is already a problem.
A small number of respondents comment that they feel
the forest would not provide a permanent sound barrier
as, they suggest, it would likely be felled soon. Others
contend studies have shown trees are no more an
effective sound barrier than grasslands.
A few respondents also contend the natural landscape
would reflect noise directly towards the village of
Knockraha.
A small number of respondents claim that recently
conducted noise assessments found existing noise levels:
• are not compliant with maximum permitted night-time
noise levels;
• are noticeable and potentially impacting nearby
dwellings; and
• could result in annoyance due to the tonal nature of
the noise.
A few respondents also suggest that noise from
substations and electrical infrastructure can have a
negative impact on animals and the mental health of
humans. Furthermore, they contend that their own testing
has revealed the converter station in Co. Meath can be
heard 1km away.
In addition to these concerns, Respondents using the
campaign template also contend there would be
significant negative impacts on noise levels. As with the
converter station site 9b, they suggest noise studies have
shown the additional audible noise could reach higher
than 100 decibels (dB).
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 40 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Wildlife and
ecology
Several respondents express concern that the converter
station may negatively impact local biodiversity. They
suggest that corridors of native woodland, particularly
ancient woodland at Ballynagaul, are significant habitats
for wildlife, including protected species, and provide
ecosystem services such as flood prevention, clear air
and water and carbon sinks.
Some respondents specifically wish to highlight road
ditches and hedgerows as essential corridors for local
wildlife and express concern about the impact their
disturbance or removal would have on the biodiversity of
the area.
A few respondents also suggest that the strip of
woodland which follows the stream and the two glens
meeting in Kilquane (Meeleen) warrant more detailed
survey. They contend this is especially important given
that otters, which they state are a European Priority
Species, utilise this waterway.
Other respondents also express concern about specific
animals that may be affected by the converter station,
including:
• loss of habitat and light pollution possibly contributing
to the decline of the Birds of Conservation Concern
living in the area; and
• light pollution negatively impacting insect populations,
particularly moths.
In line with concerns highlighted above, and in relation to
site 9b, the campaign respondents also feel the
converter station site at Kilquane (Meeleen) would have
negative impacts on local wildlife, suggesting the area
contains protected species such as yellowhammer and
barn owls, as well as glens and streams which are an
important asset for a range of species.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 41 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Hydrology Several respondents express concern that there is
potential for groundwater, surface water and soil
contamination during construction and operation of the
converter station.
A few respondents state that it would be unacceptable
for wastewater from the converter station to be disposed
of in the stream, even after filtration. They express
concern about water run-off from buildings and parking
areas potentially polluting the water table.
A small number of respondents claim that recent work to
strengthen the foundations of existing electrical pylons
outside Knockraha village used large quantities of
concrete, affecting the drainage system of the area
resulting in flooding of agricultural land and roads.
A few respondents also comment on the risk of soil
contamination, contending that the soil quality of the
area has taken years to develop and any increase to the
risk of soil contamination is unacceptable, as it directly
affects livelihoods.
A small number of respondents cite claims made in a
recent TV programme ‘RTE Investigates – The ESB Leaks’
about the poor environmental record of the ESB network,
and express concern about the high rate of leakage of
insulating oil from underground cables compared to the
UK National Grid. They worry that cables connected to
the converter site may lead to similar problems.
The campaign template used by respondents highlights
the potential negative affect of construction on a range
of local water supplies. They highlight the river next to the
site leads in to Ballingohig reservoir, which is a supply of
water to a large population, and generally question the
low to moderate risk rating given to the site.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 42 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Socioeconomic
Heritage Several respondents express opposition to the proposed
site, contending that the converter station would
negatively impact the cultural and historical heritage of
the area. Some respondents wish to emphasise their
opposition, describing the proposals as “utterly
insensitive” and showing a “total disregard” for the history
of the area and local families.
A small number of respondents wish to highlight the
multiple generations of families who have grown up in the
area, stressing their role as custodians of the land and
emphasising their opposition to its industrialisation.
Others highlight notable monuments such as Kilquane
Standing Stone, Holy Well and Graveyard and contend
that, considering these historic sites, the site risk ranking
should be upgraded to ‘moderate-high’.
The campaign response template contends that the
converter station would undermine the planned War of
Independence Heritage Trail. Some respondents also
reference other historical sites in the area related to the
War of Independence, including:
• the village of Knockraha as the location of ‘E’
Company, 4th Battalion, Cork No.1 Brigade of the IRA;
• two important bomb factories;
• various safe houses;
• an IRA court;
• arms dump sites;
• the locations of various execution and burial sites; and
• new information regarding a possible archaeological
site of an early Christian church in the townland of
Meeleen. The group has contacted the National
Monuments service about this previously
undocumented site.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 43 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Access and
traffic
Some respondents express opposition to the proposed
site because of the potential impact on local roads
caused by increased traffic. Respondents specifically
express concern about the inadequacy of the roads in
handling the required traffic and the impact that road
closures would have on local farming, health and
businesses. These concerns were also shared by
campaign respondents.
A small number of respondents also contend that access
to the Water Rock golf course would be severely
hampered by the construction work.
Local
economic
impact
Some respondents object to the proposed location due
to concerns about the potential impact on the local
economy. A few respondents wish to emphasise their
opposition, contending that the site is “totally
inappropriate” as it is in an area not currently designated
for industry or utility.
A small number of respondents claim the converter
station would bring no economic benefit to the area as
they do not believe it would provide employment or
generate additional income. Others suggest the local
economy would suffer as people would be dissuaded
from moving to the area because of the converter
station. A few respondents express concern that the
local dog training facility may lose business as dogs may
respond negatively to the frequencies of noise generated
by the converter station.
In addition to concerns about the impact of construction
traffic on business highlighted above, respondents also
contend the converter station poses unknown risks to
crops and livestock.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 44 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Health and
safety
Some respondents express concern about perceived
negative health impacts of the converter station.
In particular, a few respondents claim that the cancer
rate near the existing substation is currently higher than
the national average.
A small number of respondents contend that additional
electricity passing through power lines increases the risk of
breakage, which poses a danger to life and livestock.
A few respondents also express concern about the
capacity of emergency services to respond to an
incident at the converter station site, suggesting response
times in the area are slower than national averages and
the area lacks the required infrastructure to support
emergency responses.
The campaign organised by the Knockraha Environment
Group, in addition to sharing the concerns above, also
includes a concern that there could be significant
negative health impacts as a result of the converter
station being close to people, as well as suggesting the
site is unsuitable for emergency service access.
Property value A few respondents express opposition to the proposed
site because of potential devaluation of residential,
agricultural and business property.
A few respondents cite studies showing evidence of
devaluation of properties located near wind farm
developments, contending that the converter station
would have a similar effect.
A small number of respondents also claim that previous
expansions of the substation have already negatively
impacted property values, suggesting additional
expansion would lead to further suppression of value.
In line with comments made about the converter station
site at Knockraha, respondents using the campaign
template also express this concern about their properties
losing value as a result of the converter station site at
Kilquane (Meeleen).
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 45 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Deliverability
Infrastructure Some respondents express concern about the ability of
the existing roads to cope with additional traffic, given
how narrow and in need of repair they are.
A few respondents feel that there would be too many
design and construction difficulties involved in the plan to
lay cables via the road network. They also contend there
is a potential crossover of timelines with the planned solar
farm at Clash, which could compound the level of
disruption to residents.
A small number of respondents feel that the cumulative
impact of the proposed converter station, when
combined with previous expansions to the substation, has
not been properly considered.
Respondents using the campaign template from the
Knockraha Environment Group also contend the local
road infrastructure is unsuitable to support the work
required to construct the converter station site at
Kilquane (Meeleen).
Local
opposition
A small number of respondents claim the local
community is organised and united in opposing the
project, which would affect EirGrid’s ability to deliver the
project within the proposed timeline of 2026.
A few respondents suggest that in their experience EirGrid
have a poor record regarding resolution of issues with
local communities.
Others wish to highlight that permission would need to be
obtained from farmers who work the land between the
substation and converter station site 12, claiming that at
least 4 of these farmers would not grant permission
willingly.
The campaign organised by the Knockraha Environment
Group also highlights significant opposition from residents
in Knockraha.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 46 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Cable routes A few respondents express concern about the proposed
cable routes, suggesting the long distance between the
landfall point and Knockraha substation would increase
project risks. They therefore contend a closer substation
should be identified.
Others suggest the looping back of cables for site 12
would add an unnecessary 3-4km to the route and
increase costs.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 47 Released
Final - Version 2.0
5.9. Comments making suggestions about converter station site
12 – Kilquane (Meeleen)
Mitigation
General A small number of respondents make suggestions about
ways to mitigate the potential negative impacts from
developing the converter station at Knockraha. These
include:
• a hard trackway through land to the main road during
the construction phase to ease traffic,
• waste management to control potential litter,
• planting trees to mitigate the visual impact,
• lowering the height of the building to lessen the visual
impact, and
• use of a berm to mitigate sound and visual pollution.
5.10. Comments regarding other potential and alternative
converter station sites
Alternative converter station sites
General A few respondents comment on potential sites for the
converter station other than sites 1, 9b or 12.
A small number of respondents contend that the other
four assessed sites should be reconsidered if there is any
possibility the converter station could be “not seen and
not heard” at any of these locations.
A few respondents feel EirGrid dismissed the Ballyvatta
site too quickly, whilst others suggest Claycastle in
Youghal or Pigeonhill would be more appropriate
locations.
A small number of respondents contend the converter
station should be built in an industrial zone, suggesting the
Amgen site may be most suitable in this regard.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 48 Released
Final - Version 2.0
5.11. Comments on the assessment process and studies
undertaken in identifying the converter station sites
Support
General A small number of respondents wish to express general
satisfaction with the assessment process and studies
undertaken to identify sites.
Informative A few respondents feel the studies have been clear,
comprehensive and informative, particularly highlighting
the geological maps and computer graphics as
providing useful overviews of the proposed sites.
Agreement A small number of respondents also express agreement
with the assessments, with a few commenting that they
provided greater certainty about the potential effects at
each site.
Concern
Insufficient
consideration
A few respondents express concern about aspects of the
assessments that they feel are one-sided or lacking in
information. A few respondents contend there is a lack of
independent environmental impact information, and that
noise assessments appear not to have been made. Other
respondents feel the impact assessments lack balance
and that they appear to prioritise the business interests of
EirGrid over those of the community.
A small number of respondents contend that insufficient
consideration was given to zones 14 and 6, whilst others
express concern that the assessment process seemed
rushed.
A few respondents also question the conclusions of the
assessments in relation to the water pollution risk ratings.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 49 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Predetermined A few respondents feel that the Knockraha site had
already been decided prior to assessments taking place,
due to its proximity to the existing substation.
A small number of respondents describe the assessment
process as a “box ticking exercise”.
Others contend that the way certain information was
presented in reports was deliberately misleading in order,
for example, to minimise the scale of visual impact the
converter station may have.
Scoring system A few respondents contend there is a lack of
transparency around how the conclusions of the
Performance Matrix Chart were arrived at. They question
why all sections are treated with equal importance
instead of being weighted based on significance.
A small number of respondents feel the assessment of
Land Use Planning also lacks transparency and question
the rankings given to sites 1 and 9b.
Inconsistent
and/or
inaccurate
A few respondents contend there are inconsistencies in
how sites have been ranked. For example, they question
why sites 1 and 9b are given the same low-moderate
ranking for Landscape and Visual, when site 1 is in a low-
lying industrial park and site 9b is on one of the highest
points in rural Knockraha.
A small number of respondents also question why
emphasis is placed on choosing a site where any noise
impact would be least felt, instead of trying to design the
converter station in such a way that it would make less
noise.
Ecological
surveys
A small number of respondents suggest the EirGrid
assessment needs to take account of various species,
including lamprey, sea trout, Atlantic salmon, the
European pine marten and barn owls.
Suggestions
Specific
considerations
A small number of respondents wish to highlight areas
they feel should be assessed further. They contend the
future cumulative impacts of the converter station need
to be assessed and should include energy grid demand
forecasts by region. Others feel the overall Combined
Environmental Performance of each site should be
reassessed.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 50 Released
Final - Version 2.0
More
information
requested
A few respondents request more details regarding the
Environmental Impact Assessments of the final site
selection, particularly the impact on biodiversity, noise
and traffic.
A small number of respondents request information on
the predicted timelines for laying the two different types
of cables between Ballyadam and Knockraha.
Include
percentages
A small number of respondents express confusion about
the colour coding of report charts and feel that including
percentages within the infographics would have been a
better way to present the information.
Re-evaluation
of all sites
A small number of respondents contend that the
assessment criteria for all sites should be re-evaluated.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 51 Released
Final - Version 2.0
6. Feedback on proposed community fund
6.1. Overview
As part of the project, EirGrid have proposed a community fund which would
help local communities’ benefit from the development. They asked
respondents what their views on how this could best be applied, and which
organisations or groups should form a local advisory group to represent
communities. There were several suggestions as to how the proposed
community fund could be used and who would be sensible organisations to
join local advisory groups.
6.2. Suggestions regarding the community fund
Community facilities
Investing in the
community
Some respondents suggest facilities that could benefit
from the community fund. Respondents tend to make
proposals of specific benefit to their own community.
Notably a few respondents in proximity to Site 12 and Site
9b highlight the need for an AstroTurf pitch and other
sports facilities in Knockraha as well as a new community
centre, hall and open recreational spaces.
A few respondents highlight the importance of building
amenities that can generate an income for the
community.
A few respondents call for a playground, but others
contend this is not needed in Knockraha.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 52 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Mitigation
Mitigating
negative
impacts
Some respondents suggest ways the community fund
could be spent on mitigation measures. Concern over
potential noise pollution in communities close to the
proposed converter station sites at 9b - Knockraha and
Site -12 Kilquane (Meeleen) are often raised and a few
respondents call for:
• improved landscaping barriers around the existing
substation;
• upgrades to houses to help dampen the impacts of
noise emitted from the substation and converter
station; and
• a paid independent acoustic consultant to measure,
detect and report when the existing substation in
Knockraha is in breach of the noise criteria.
A small number of users ask for compensation for people
who live close to proposed converter station sites and
want to relocate.
A few respondents, in reference to site 9b suggest
installing CCTV to protect the area from potential anti-
social loitering and “a light switch” to be installed on the
substation that can reduce the light pollution emanating
from the station when the lights are not needed.
A few respondents in reference to site 9b and site 12 call
for the existing substation to be fixed, upgraded or
removed which they claim has been promised.
Engage with
the community
A small number of respondents suggest that communities
most impacted by the proposals be respected and
consulted about how the community fund can be best
spent.
A few others suggest local community associations are
best placed to make decisions.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 53 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Infrastructure
improvements
A few respondents suggest local road infrastructure
intended to be used by the project would need to be
improved. Specifically, they call for road widening and
for local road users to be protected from heavy vehicles.
A small number of respondents suggest the following
improvements for their local area:
• installing a bus shelter;
• unspecified measures regarding the area surrounding
the entrance to the substation in Knockraha; and
• improvements to mobile reception and internet in
project impacted areas.
Youth facilities A few respondents suggest that youth facilities and
opportunities are needed, and others say they would like
to see a children’s playground. A small number of
respondents near the landfall location suggest water
sports amenity is promoted such as kayaking, or
canoeing.
Sustainability A small number of respondents would like to see
sustainability, such as home insulation support, as a key
theme for community gain.
Working with
ESB
A few respondents in reference to the proposed
converter station sites at 9b and 12 suggest proper
engagement between the management of the
substation and the converter station. They contend that
EirGrid and ESB appear to be completely disconnected
and it is where there are gaps in responsibility that the
community suffers.
Other suggestions
General A few respondents suggest the community fund be used
for other specific local requirements such as:
• replace the groynes to protect the beach, where the
cable enters the sea from the land;
• upgrade an unspecified community hall;
• upgrade an unspecified youth centre; and
• support micro-generation insulation retro-fitting at a
community level.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 54 Released
Final - Version 2.0
6.3. Comments expressing concerns about the community fund
Concern
General A few respondents oppose the community fund because
they view it as a form of bribery, and they are concerned
it would go to the most influential or obstructive groups.
Others contend that the fund would create a conflict of
interest for the recipients. A small number of respondents
contend it is an attempt to buy-off communities who
would be suffering from the impact of the proposals.
A few respondents suggest the fund can never
compensate for the destruction of their community and
others say that whilst the village as a whole might benefit,
the impact would still be felt on their house.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 55 Released
Final - Version 2.0
6.4. Suggestions regarding the local advisory group
General
Some respondents make general suggestions about
engaging with local communities. These suggestions
include involving:
• local community groups;
• representatives from the local primary school;
• all local public and private organisations;
• community associations;
• representatives from the youth group Foróige;
• some Gaelic Athletic Association groups;
• schools;
• local businesses; and
• groups and organisations from Knockraha.
A few respondents suggest the communities themselves
should be asked which groups they would like to be
involved and to work with.
A small number of respondents ask why only organisations
can be involved. A few respondents suggest every
household should be included but others suggest one
person from the affected households.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 56 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Specific groups
Some respondents make suggestions about which groups
should be involved in the advisory board. Respondents
often mention the Knockraha Environment Group, a small
number also suggest the Youghal Chamber of Tourism &
Development and Knockraha Environmental Group.
Other groups mentioned include:
• Youghal 4 All;
• Youghal Business Alliance;
• IFA;
• Knockraha IFA;
• Knockraha Macra Na Feirme, (a rural youth
organisation);
• South Coast Triathlon Club; and
• Youghal Socio-Economic Development Group.
A few others suggest the local heritage community and
community council. A few respondents call for the
inclusion of an unspecified community association, and a
representative body from the area immediately affected.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 57 Released
Final - Version 2.0
7. Feedback on the consultation process
EirGrid also asked for feedback on how well respondents felt they had been
consulted about the project. This included a number of closed questions, the
results from these are included in Appendix B. Other comments related to
the consultation process itself are summarised here.
7.1. Comments supporting consultation process
Process
General A small number of respondents express support for the
consultation process so far and appreciate the level of
consultation. This was also reflected in comments by a
local TD, who felt the approach to consultation had been
thorough.
Events
Staff and
organisation
A few respondents highlight that they have found
consultation events to be well run and informative and
EirGrid staff to be helpful and engaging.
7.2. Comments expressing concern consultation process
Events
General A few respondents express dissatisfaction with the
consultation events. A few respondents comment that
they found the events confusing or that the quality was
generally “poor”.
A small number of respondents express dislike for the
dispersed format of events. They feel that previous
consultations involving a town hall presentation format
were better at allowing the community to air their
concerns directly to EirGrid representatives.
Staff A few respondents feel that EirGrid staff at events lacked
local knowledge and seemed dismissive of community
concerns. They also comment that staff seemed to give
inconsistent responses to questions.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 58 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Promotion A few respondents comment that they did not receive
information about the first public consultation event,
suggesting that many local people were not aware of it.
They contend events were poorly advertised, with no
visible posters in the area, and this meant the community
could not organise effectively for the meeting.
Poor publicity / outreach
Landowners A small number of respondents feel that farmers and
landowners with land either on or adjacent to the
proposed sites have not been consulted directly,
contending that this shows disregard for local people.
Others feel that communication has been rushed and
that affected landowners have not had time to fully
explore the potential impacts of the project.
Information misleading and/or vague
Quality of
information
A few respondents contend that information provided in
consultation materials is incorrect and that the
assessment matrix used is too simplistic. Others feel that
the negative effects on the local community and
environment have not been properly explained.
A small number of respondents express concern about a
perceived lack of information regarding future
development of the converter station, highlighting that
the existing substation has been expanded since
construction in the 1960s.
Engagement
Poor levels of
engagement
A few respondents feel they have not been sufficiently
consulted on the proposals, commenting that they feel
they are just being told where the converter station will
go. Respondents feel there was not enough consultation
before Kilquane (Meeleen) was declared the emerging
best performing option.
A small number of respondents contend that questions
from landowners have not been properly answered,
suggesting that some have waited over two months for a
response from EirGrid.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 59 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Predetermination
Listening to
responses
A few respondents feel that site 9b has already been
chosen as it appears to be the cheapest option.
Timing
Limited
timeframe
A few respondents feel their engagement in the
consultation process has been constrained by the limited
response period, contending that the 11 weeks from the
open night on 18th November to the February 2nd
deadline was too short, particularly as it fell over
Christmas,
7.3. Requests for further engagement
Suggestions
Ongoing
engagement
A few respondents express a desire for further updates
regarding the project, either through formal meetings or
correspondence. A few respondents suggest
engagement with the community could be improved by
using local radio and leaflet drops, as well as reaching
out to specific groups such as fishermen.
A few respondents stress the importance of listening to
the concerns of people living along the cabling route,
citing a previous development between Flagford in Co.
Roscommon and Srananagh in Co. Sligo where they feel
this did not happen.
A small number of respondents suggest an improved
format for consultation events which combines a formal
presentation with the poster style format.
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 60 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Appendix A – Codes applied
The tables below show the codes which were used in the analysis of open
responses to identify and group the issues, topics and sentiment of the
responses.
The tables below show the number of times respondents raised that
particular issue. This gives a broad indication of how frequently that issue or
topic was raised. Please note that the nature of qualitative analysis means
that there is always a small margin for variation and as such these numbers
should always be seen as approximate.
It should also be noted that the frequency of an issue being raised does not
necessarily correlate with its importance or validity. A frequently raised
comment may indicate a commonly held, but incorrect belief, whilst a
comment made infrequently may reflect an important issue that may not be
widely known.
As all campaign responses used identical text and were therefore coded
identically, the total number of responses includes campaign responses,
whilst the non-campaign column only features respondents who did not
submit an identical campaign response.
Assessment codes
Code Total Non-campaign
(A) Assessment - Concern - ecological surveys 1 1
(A) Assessment - Concern - inconsistent/inaccurate 4 4
(A) Assessment - Concern - Insufficient consideration 8 8
(A) Assessment - Concern - predetermined 5 5
(A) Assessment - Concern - scoring system 5 5
(A) Assessment - Suggestion - include percentages 1 1
(A) Assessment - Suggestion - more information requested 2 2
(A) Assessment - Suggestion - re-evaluation of all sites 1 1
(A) Assessment - Suggestion - specific considerations 4 4
(A) Assessment - Support - general 12 12
Community Fund codes
Code Total Non-campaign
(CF) Community Fund - Concern - general 5 5
(CF) Community Fund - Suggestion - community facilities 9 9
(CF) Community Fund - Suggestion - engage with community 4 4
(CF) Community Fund - Suggestion - general 13 13
(CF) Community Fund - Suggestion - infrastructure
improvements
4 4
(CF) Community Fund - Suggestion - mitigation 2 2
(CF) Community Fund - Suggestion - specific groups 12 12
(CF) Community Fund - Suggestion - sustainability 1 1
(CF) Community Fund - Suggestion - working with ESB 1 1
(CF) Community Fund - Suggestion - youth facilities 3 3
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 61 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Consultation codes
Code Total Non-campaign
(C) Consultation - Concern - events 933 6
(C) Consultation - Concern - info misleading/vague 6 6
(C) Consultation - Concern - poor engagement 4 4
(C) Consultation - Concern - poor promotion 6 6
(C) Consultation - Concern - predetermination 1 1
(C) Consultation - Concern - timing 1 1
(C) Consultation - Suggestion - general 12 12
(C) Consultation - Support - events 3 3
(C) Consultation - Support - process 4 4
Cable Route codes
Code Total Non-campaign
(CR) Cable Routes - Concern - environment 3 3
(CR) Cable Routes - Concern - general 1 1
(CR) Cable Routes - Concern - road network 5 5
(CR) Cable Routes - Suggestion 3 3
(CR) Cable Routes - Support with caveat 1 1
Converter Station Site codes
Code Total Non-campaign
(CSS) Other - Other Sites 9 9
(CSS) Site 1 - Concern - delivery - cost 1 1
(CSS) Site 1 - Concern - delivery - disruption to roads 2 2
(CSS) Site 1 - Concern - delivery - equipment needed at
Knockraha
3 3
(CSS) Site 1 - Concern - delivery - too far from converter 2 2
(CSS) Site 1 - Concern - delivery - underground caves 1 1
(CSS) Site 1 - Concern - environment - flooding 3 3
(CSS) Site 1 - Concern - environment - landscape/visual 3 3
(CSS) Site 1 - Concern - environment - noise/sound 1 1
(CSS) Site 1 - Concern - environment - noise/sound 2 2
(CSS) Site 1 - Concern - socioeconomic - disruption to cable
works
1 1
(CSS) Site 1 - Concern - socioeconomic - disruption to roads 1 1
(CSS) Site 1 - Concern - socioeconomic - local economy 2 2
(CSS) Site 1 - Suggestion - general 3 3
(CSS) Site 1 - Support - delivery - doubt risk of floods 4 4
(CSS) Site 1 - Support - delivery - existing infrastructure 14 14
(CSS) Site 1 - Support - delivery - HVAC cables 2 2
(CSS) Site 1 - Support - delivery - suitable site 4 4
(CSS) Site 1 - Support - general 5 5
(CSS) Site 1 - Support - landscape/visual 3 3
(CSS) Site 1 - Support - noise/vibration 2 2
(CSS) Site 1 - Support - socioeconomic - least impact 3 3
(CSS) Site 1 - Support - socioeconomic - local benefit 2 2
(CSS) Site 1 - Support - space 3 3
(CSS) Site 12 - Concern - delivery - cable routes 2 2
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 62 Released
Final - Version 2.0
(CSS) Site 12 - Concern - delivery - infrastructure 935 8
(CSS) Site 12 - Concern - delivery - local opposition 931 4
(CSS) Site 12 - Concern - environment - general 4 4
(CSS) Site 12 - Concern - environment - hydrology 938 11
(CSS) Site 12 - Concern - environment - landscape/visual 945 18
(CSS) Site 12 - Concern - environment - noise/vibration 945 18
(CSS) Site 12 - Concern - environment - rural location 962 20
(CSS) Site 12 - Concern - environment - wildlife/ecology 940 13
(CSS) Site 12 - Concern - general 940 13
(CSS) Site 12 - Concern - socioeconomic - access/traffic 16 16
(CSS) Site 12 - Concern - socioeconomic - community impact 10 10
(CSS) Site 12 - Concern - socioeconomic - health/safety 10 10
(CSS) Site 12 - Concern - socioeconomic - heritage 941 14
(CSS) Site 12 - Concern - socioeconomic - local economic
impact
937 10
(CSS) Site 12 - Concern - socioeconomic - property value 931 4
(CSS) Site 12 - Suggestion - general 6 6
(CSS) Site 12 - Support - close to Knockraha station 1 1
(CSS) Site 12 - Support - general 7 7
(CSS) Site 12 - Support - landscape/visual 6 6
(CSS) Site 12 - Support - less community impact 4 4
(CSS) Site 12 - Support - noise/vibration 3 3
(CSS) Site 12 - Support - second choice 3 3
(CSS) Site 9b - Concern - delivery - cable routes 1 1
(CSS) Site 9b - Concern - delivery - infrastructure 935 8
(CSS) Site 9b - Concern - delivery - local opposition 931 4
(CSS) Site 9b - Concern - environment - air pollution 1 1
(CSS) Site 9b - Concern - environment - general 2 2
(CSS) Site 9b - Concern - environment - hydrology 934 7
(CSS) Site 9b - Concern - environment - landscape/visual 949 22
(CSS) Site 9b - Concern - environment - noise/vibration 944 17
(CSS) Site 9b - Concern - environment - rural location 958 18
(CSS) Site 9b - Concern - environment - wildlife/ecology 938 11
(CSS) Site 9b - Concern - general 944 17
(CSS) Site 9b - Concern - socioeconomic - community impact 15 15
(CSS) Site 9b - Concern - socioeconomic - health/safety 936 9
(CSS) Site 9b - Concern - socioeconomic - heritage 940 13
(CSS) Site 9b - Concern - socioeconomic - local economic
impact
934 7
(CSS) Site 9b - Concern - socioeconomic - property value 937 10
(CSS) Site 9b - Concern - socioeconomic - traffic/congestion 10 10
(CSS) Site 9b - Suggestion - mitigation 2 2
(CSS) Site 9b - Support - delivery - less cabling 1 1
(CSS) Site 9b - Support - environment - noise/vibration 1 1
(CSS) Site 9b - Support - general 1 1
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 63 Released
Final - Version 2.0
General comments on the overall project
Code Total Non-campaign
(G) General - Concern - delivery - C02 emission 2 2
(G) General - Concern - delivery - changes to existing
infrastructure at Knockraha
929 2
(G) General - Concern - delivery - local power
generation/returning power to the grid
2 2
(G) General - Concern - delivery - other infrastructure 1 1
(G) General - Concern - environment - existing substation 935 8
(G) General - Concern - environment - noise/vibration 2 2
(G) General - Concern - environment - rural location 930 3
(G) General - Concern - socioeconomic - doubt need 6 6
(G) General - Concern - socioeconomic - health 931 4
(G) General - Concern - socioeconomic - object to nuclear
power
930 3
(G) General - Concern - socioeconomic - other 2 2
(G) General - Oppose 933 6
(G) General - Suggestion 8 8
(G) General - Support 3 3
Landfall Location codes
Code Total Non-campaign
(LL) Claycastle Beach - Concern - delivery - distance from
Knockraha
1 1
(LL) Claycastle Beach - Concern - delivery - interference 3 3
(LL) Claycastle Beach - Concern - environment - general 3 3
(LL) Claycastle Beach - Concern - socioeconomic - fisheries 1 1
(LL) Claycastle Beach - Concern - socioeconomic - heritage 1 1
(LL) Claycastle Beach - Concern - socioeconomic - public
amenity
3 3
(LL) Claycastle Beach - Concern - socioeconomic - tourism 2 2
(LL) Claycastle Beach - Claycastle Beach - Oppose - general 1 1
(LL) Claycastle Beach - Claycastle Beach - Suggestion -
general
1 1
(LL) Claycastle Beach - Claycastle Beach - Support - general 2 2
(LL) Other - Other Location - Suggestion - general 3 3
Other codes
Code Total Non-campaign
(OTH) Other - Campaign response 10 10
(OTH) Other - Editor's note 7 7
(OTH) Other - Meaning unclear 4 4
(OTH) Other - No comment 19 19
(OTH) Other - Personal details 27 27
(OTH) Other - Respondent context 947 20
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 64 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Appendix B – Responses to closed questions
The charts shown in this section summarise the information provided by
respondents to the online and hardcopy questionnaire. The feedback
outlined below is incorporated within the main report.
As the number of respondents using the online and hardcopy questionnaire
represented only a small proportion of the overall responses, with between
30 and 40 respondents giving a response, these charts should not be
considered to be representative of the views of the wider respondents but
are included to show the views of those who did provide a response to these
questions.
General
The chart below shows respondents’ overall views on the effect the Celtic
Interconnector Project would have on Ireland.
Figure 3: Views about the Celtic Interconnector Project overall
Pg N
Step 4 Celtic Interconnector: Consultation Report
Page 65 Released
Final - Version 2.0
Consultation
The chart below shows responses given by respondents when asked to
provide views on the quality of the consultation engagement and materials.
Figure 4: Views on the quality of the consultation events, materials and promotion
The chart below shows the responses given when respondents were asked
how they first heard about the consultation.
Figure 5: How respondents first heard about the consultation
Pg N
Appendix C – The consultation response form
Pg N
Pg N
Pg N
Pg N
If you would like a large text version of this document, please contact us.
The Angel Office, 2 Angel Square,
London, EC1V 1NY United Kingdom
www.traverse.ltd